The second presidential debate

An aggressive rematch

AS MUCH a verbal brawl as a discussion of policy, the second presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney ended in a draw—at least if points were being awarded to candidates for appealing to their respective bases.

Mr Obama’s supporters longed to see their man improve on his lacklustre performance at the first debate and come out swinging, as he has for months at rallies and on the campaign trail. The president gave Democratic partisans much to enjoy—indeed, if they are the sort to attend his campaign rallies, his finest zingers would have been well-known to them, as he drew heavily on his stump speeches for well-honed attack lines. That alone will feel to many Democrats like a win, or at least a disaster averted. Their man was back in contention, after bafflingly declining to play the debate game on his first try.

The familiar criticisms included attacks on Mr Romney for paying a lower tax rate than many middle-class Americans, for having opposed a government bail-out of big carmakers in Detroit and for his record on women’s pay, contraception and abortion. Mr Obama repeated a low blow levelled by his campaign when he went after Mr Romney for holding investments in Chinese companies, hinting that this was unpatriotic. The Republican attempted to counter the charge, suggesting (probably correctly) that Mr Obama’s pension fund would have made investments overseas and possibly in China. Mr Obama aimed still lower, offering the cheap but effective shot that he did not check his pension fund that often, because it was so much smaller than Mr Romney’s.

Mr Obama was nimble, too, seizing on a mistake by Mr Romney—who over-reached during a discussion of Libya and the murder of America’s ambassador there, (wrongly) accusing the president of failing to call the killing an act of terror for days, then loudly challenging Mr Obama’s rejoinder that he had called it an act of terror almost immediately. “Get the transcript,” snapped Mr Obama, his eyes blazing with contempt.

Mr Romney had presumably intended to make a different point: that the administration had spent days talking up its belief that the ambassador was killed by a mob incensed by an anti-Muslim film made in America, only later conceding that there had been an attack by terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. The Romney campaign has been pounding at the question for days, suggesting that Mr Obama was covering up security blunders at best, and at worst trying to conceal chaos in Libya that exposed American policy there and elsewhere in the Arab world as a shambles.

Mr Obama pounced on the chance to turn icily presidential. “The suggestion that anybody in my team, the secretary of state, our UN ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we lost four of our own, governor, is offensive,” he declared. “That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.”

In an astute move, Mr Obama waited for his last answer to raise his opponents’ secretly-recorded comments to donors in May conflating the 47% of the country that pays no federal income tax with Mr Obama’s core vote. In those comments, Mr Romney had suggested that such non-taxpayers thought of themselves as victims owed a living by the government. Mr Obama accused his rival of insulting everyone from pensioners to students or soldiers fighting overseas (who enjoy special tax allowances). With time up, Mr Romney had no chance to respond.

Yet Mr Romney will have cheered Republicans too, as he pulled off another forceful, clear, aggressive display, and lashed the president for a long list of broken promises on the economy, concluding with a repeated refrain: “We don’t have to settle for this”.

"If you elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years," Mr Romney said. "We don't have to settle for what we're going through. We don't have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don't have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don't have to settle for 47m people on food stamps. We don't have to settle for 50% of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don't have to settle for 23m people struggling to find a good job."

The Republican shored up his party’s advantage in coal-mining and oil-drilling regions, trying to paint Mr Obama as a hand-wringing environmentalist willing to put the lives of a handful of birds ahead of jobs and lower energy prices.

He also aggressively rebutted some of Mr Obama’s attacks on him, once again striding firmly towards the political centre. He boasted about how he pursued affirmative-action policies to fill his cabinet in Massachusetts with women, recalled the universal health coverage he had offered his state’s residents as governor and portrayed himself as a moderate on everything from women’s contraception to immigration.

“I’m not in favour of rounding up people and taking them out of the country,” Mr Romney said, in a nuanced response to a question about the correct approach to undocumented immigrants. Back during the Republican primaries, Lexington marvelled, almost any of the above declarations of moderacy could have seen him rounded up and taken out of the party race.

Instant opinion polls largely confirmed the impression of a draw, with one poll by CNN showing that 46% of respondents thought Mr Obama won, compared to 39% for Mr Romney, a result within the survey's margin of error. I would not be astonished if conservatives called the moderator of the debate, Candy Crowley of CNN, biased towards Mr Obama, after she fact-checked his Libya blunder live on air, slapping the Republican down, to (unauthorised) applause from the studio audience, who were supposed to stay silent throughout.

Yet the debate was a draw only if the election on November 6th is mostly about who can turn out their base. Both men did enough to fire up their own supporters and enrage their opponent’s.

But if the election is to be decided by independent and undecided voters, especially those women voters who decide late, then it is probably fairer to say that both candidates lost tonight. Their turkey-cocking and stiff necked strutting around the stage, constant interruptions and open disdain for each other could have been calculated to offend those already unimpressed by politicians.

One final group scored a win: undecided voters. In recent weeks, with news reports filled with attempts to find the elusive 10% or less of the electorate not yet corralled into polarised camps on left and right, it has become fashionable to suggest, in an eye-rolling sort of way, that any voter who cannot decide between such different candidates is dim, lazy, unserious or all three.

However, the undecided voters selected by Gallup, the pollsters, to form the audience at tonight’s town-hall style debate put such sneering to shame. Time and again they asked sharp and tricky questions, and made it clear that their indecision was born out of understandable disappointment with Mr Obama’s record, and the vagueness of Mr Romney’s plans on such key fronts as taxation, spending and fixing the budget deficit.

They are right to be disappointed. As the president said, in his best scripted gag: “Governor Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, governor, with a plan that said, ‘Here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion and we’re going to pay for it but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it.’ You wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal and neither would you, the American people.”

Yet Mr Romney was also right that Mr Obama over-promised when running for office four years ago and has under-delivered.

A debate on foreign policy is due next Monday. There are weighty questions to discuss but serious arguments about foreign policy are a poor fit with a general-election campaign. Judging by tonight, expect lots of China-bashing and opportunistic sparring over the Middle East.

After that third encounter next week, presidential debate season will be over. Judging by the looks of mutual loathing both men flashed tonight, they will not miss each other’s company.

I spent my entire adult working life in software. It's shocking and disappointing to me that a computer professional could be so obtuse as to think that the technology industries can provide a job for every American or to think that Americans working at honest low-tech labor are somehow a threat to a software "entrepreneur."

I am not qualified to comment on the economy of manufacturing, for it is not my domain.

However, one would be remiss to not identify software with high skill and income labor. With regards to IP theft, my code and patents can and will be stolen whether I'm in San Francisco, Singapore, or Santiago. What is less likely to happen, in the latter cities, is to have a drought of talent brought about by inadequate government support to combat prohibitively high university tuition costs which harm our already dwindling supply of STEM graduates, nor will byzantine immigration systems give the same unnecessary disdain to talented, skilled graduates, as it does to the low-skill migrant laborers.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

That's funny, I just ran across this transcript while debating this on another forum. Here are my 2 cents, as I posted there.

Posting the parts of the speech relevant to this debate (for both sides):

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it."

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

"But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity."

To me paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 contain clear references to the American that posted the muslim-derogatory video on youtube, which the President seems to denounce as the cause of these attacks. Now I don't care if he was lying at that time or not, and it doesn't matter for this debate, that's just what he's saying, to me at least.

Of course paragraph 3 contains the words that are crucial to the President's claims in the debate. He specifically calls them acts of terror.

The President claimed in the debate that he immediately denounced the killings as being terrorist attacks. Romney disagreed, claiming it took the administration two weeks to come out with that fact. The moderator then backed mr. Obama's claims (which, regardless of who is right, to me is wrong either way).

What it essentially boils down to is how you define "acts of terror". I don't want to be a wordsmith and Republican mouthpiece here, but to me "acts of terror" is very broad and is applicable to a plethora of situations. "A terrorist attack" is more specific and explicitly points to the cause of the killings, which in the case of a terrorist attack had nothing to do with the video that was posted (in which case, why all the references?).

Here's what Wikipedia says about the issue:

"Questions about whether the White House should have stated or did state this conclusion earlier and whether the site of the assault was adequately secured before and after the attack created a political controversy in the United States"

In the end, I feel the same way. Obama lied, and for whatever reason the moderator confirmed his lie.

When Obama said he wanted to bring "high skill, high income" jobs to the US, his immediate utterance of "manufacturing" had this software entrepreneur both shocked and disappointed. Countries all over, from Chile to China, are doing their best to emphasize a "Talent Economy." If the economic plan of this administration is to force a 20th century economy on a 21st century nation, why should I even bother keeping myself - or my businesses - in the United States?

Republicans Caught In Another Lie.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” But it didn’t happen. Under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower. Here are the facts, • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. More crow to be eaten by the Karl Rove / Koch Brother Republican propaganda machine.

Which do you prefer when you complete your merger:
"Foxconomist, or EconoFox"?
We get it, you refuse to give any credit to Obama for anything. I'm awaiting your endorsement of Romney, coming any day. The Economist is not impartial.
Economist, you suck.

I can understand Romney's disdain for Obama. The man has been a miserable failure as president, at home and abroad. Obama's can be accounted for by the prospect of losing a job that has magnified his sense of his own magnificence.

Way to immediately get nasty by using a term like "moronic". I was simply replying to your comment and it shows how defensive you are. A little insecure are we? But nevertheless...

I'm not denying the administration refused to call it what it was for weeks. But your comment above was about an exchange that took place in the debate last night. You were wrong and I called you out on it.

Romney had a chance to dominate on a question regarding Obama's blundering on Libya and he blew it. Pure and simple. Now you're here today complaining about things like the moderator, the crowd and some people clapping. Take a loss like a man and move on.

"He also aggressively rebutted some of Mr Obama’s attacks on him, once again striding firmly towards the political centre. He boasted about how he pursued affirmative-action policies to fill his cabinet in Massachusetts with women, recalled the universal health coverage he had offered his state’s residents as governor..."
Except it simply isn't true. The "binder of women" was put together by MassGAP BEFORE Romney took office, before we even know if he would defeat Shannon O'Brien.
Please see the MassGAP website (http://www.massgap.org/about.htm) which notes that "more than 25 women’s organizations banded together to form the bi-partisan MassGAP Project for the purpose of increasing the number of women in high-ranking appointed positions...through providing names and resumes of qualified women for top appointments."
Even the MassGAP website mistakenly gives Romney credit for things he didn't do. It notes that Romney appointed women to higher positions from Jan 2002 - Jul 2004; he wasn't elected until Nov 2002 and took office on January 2, 2003.
Many have noted, in fact, that the percentage of women in senior appointed positions actually DECLINED under Romney, from 30% in 2002 to 27.6% in 2006.

It is the bit of the quote you've omitted, "dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" and "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
This is the part, said by one millionaire behind closed doors to other millionaires, that stung people.
If he'd only said what you claim he was saying there wouldn't have been such a fuss.

THE FACTS: Obama is correct in saying that he referred to Benghazi as an act of terrorism on Sept. 12, the day after the attack. From the Rose Garden, he said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."

Let me be clear (an Obama-ism for I am about to confuse the heck out of you), I frankly have no idea what he's talking about in that sentence. It's such a general sentence when he could have been so much clearer. He could have just called the folks that attacked the embassy terrorists, or the specific act an act of terrorism. He was specifically asked later if it was an act of war and he decided to ignore that question. Not exactly jumping onto the terrorism idea.

In his 10 minute speach he waxed poetically on about that blasted video that nobody watched on how that was the root cause of all the world's problems. That one quote is the best you can get to with him calling it a terrorist act. To be frank, he could just as well have claimed that he didn't call anything terrorism.

If Crowley is going to correct Romney, she ought to have gotten it right. In that space, it seems she'll have to ask for some slack.